*"* lTTACK on 

SOCIALISM 

By FRANK WHEELER 


AND THE 
DEFENSE 

By J. B. RUTHERFORD 






















GIFT 

lias. B BN B. LINDSEY 

mrv tr^ PRlL i5, 1949 

J8S Juaa&jar of congress 



Attack on Socialism 

By FRANK WHEELER 



California, August 7, 1905. 

J. B. Rutherford, Esq.: 

My Dear Sir — I thank you for the kind expressions contained 
in your letter to hand, and for your solicitude that I should 
know more about Socialism. I have lately been receiving the 
“Appeal to Reason,” though I was unaware what friend sent it. 
I have read this paper, and consider it a dangerous firebrand. 
I fear too many of its subscribers are like the sailors of Ulyses, 
and take bags of wind for sacks of treasure and fall into the 
error of wasting time over trash. Socialism is nothing but an- 
archy disguised. However, much we may sympathize with So- 
cialists in Germany and Russia, they have no excuse for existing 
in the United States. Henry Ward Beecher said: “They are 
as much out of the pale of society as the wolf. Socialism is 
absolutely the worst form of monarchy. The most active men 
of the party are foreigners, educated in other countries, and 
have not yet abandoned their home ideas. The foreign brand 
has not yet been ground out of them. A man of talent could 
not be likened to one without. Classes are going to exist and 
there is going to be top, bottom and middle, and Socialism can- 
not break that down. If a man puts his own clothes on his six- 
weeks-old infant, does that make the child his equal? The 
workingman’s position is better in this country today than 
it is in any other country, or ever was before.” And what 
was true in Beecher’s day is equally true today. 

Socialism submerges the individual and deals with the race 
collectively. It claims that every natural resource, and every 
product of labor alike belong to society as a unit. Socialism 
places a premium upon the indolent, shiftless, thriftless, in- 
compentent and vicious at the expense of the industrious, thrif- 
ty, competent and moral individuals, who constitute society. 
The term Christian Socialist is both absurd and false. Social- 
ism is not in accord with Christ’s teachings. I agree with you 
that we are living in the latter days. And you remember 
Christ warns us that in the latter days false prophets would 
arise that would almost deceive the very elect. I believe that 
Christ’s warning had special reference to Socialists. You ad- 
mit your ranks are filled with men who do not believe in a 
God or heaven or hell, Atheists, Freethinkers, Materialists, and 
the like. Do you not realize how lonesome you must be? You 
are far too good a man for such company. These men look to 
Eugene Debs as their savior. Eugene Debs, with his blood- 
stained flag of Socialism, a flag stained with the foulest murders 
history can record, stained with the blood of the victims of the 
midnight assassin and the hired sluggers; stained with the tears 


4 


ATTACK ON SOCIALISM 


of the women and children who are starved while their husbands 
and fathers obey the commands of the walking delegates and re- 
fuse to work. Such a leader with such followers can only lead 
to misery and destruction. No wonder you take a melancholy 
view of life. Your letter reminds me of the lines with which 
Omar Khayyam opens his Quatrians — 

“We sojourn here for one short day or two, 

And all the gain we get is grief and woe, 

And then leaving life’s problems all unsolved, 

And harrassed by regrets we have to go.” 

Or, as Edwin Arnold has it — 

“We are the voices of the wandering wind, 

Which moan for rest, and rest can never find. 

Lo as the wind is, so is mortal life. 

A moan, a sigh, a sob, a storm, a strife.” 

Ought we not to place before ourselves a very different ideal, 
a healthier and nobler hope? A bird has the right to fly just 
as high as its wings will carry it; a mole has the right to go 
just where its nature carries it. If birds were subject to the 
control of worms and moles, what a time there would be. I 
believe as the Italian proverb has it: “If all cannot live on 
the piaza, every one may feel the sun.” Much of what men 
suffer has been brought on by themselves, if not by actual fault, 
at least by ignorance or thoughtfulness. We often distress our- 
selves greatly in the apprehension of misfortunes which, after 
all, never happen. Some one has said that calamities sent by 
heaven may be avoided, but from those we bring on ourselves 
“there is no escape.” Be careful then how you monkey with 
the buzz-saw. You say it is impossible to follow Christ’s teach- 
ing; therefore, we cannot be Christians. Christ taught us to 
say, “Give us this day our daily bread.” Surely this is as ap- 
plicable today as it was 1900 years ago. But under Socialism 
the Lord’s prayer would be a dead letter, every one would have 
bread, and to spare. Christ said, “The poor you have always 
with you” — and again, “Blessed be ye poor, for yours is the 
kingdom of God.” With Socialism there can be no poor; there- 
fore, Socialism cannot be in accordance with Christ’s teaching. 
Dr. W. M. Kellogg, in Socialism defined, says: “When Jesus 
the founder of Christianity came he declared that God had un- 
equally distributed the wealth of the world. He said that to 
one he had given ten talents, to another five, and to another 
one. If Jesus did not teach that God had unequally distributed 
the wealth of the world, then he did not teach anything. More- 
over, he taught that man should increase this wealth by all 
honorable and honest methods. The only one of the lot con- 
demned by him was the fellow who did not increase his holdings 
by burying his money in a napkin. According to the parable he 
was stripped of what little he had and it was given to a steward, 
who had shown his ability to increase his wealth. There are 
some very profound lessons in this parable. When God created 
the world he crowned his work by placing man above and over 
all. He provided man with all the natural resources of wealth, 
such as land, light, heat, air and water, fruit and grain, every 
seed after its kind.” Then he issued the command to increase 
and multiply animal and vegetable products, “multiply and re- 
plenish the earth.” God had provided man with the original 


ATTACK ON SOCIALISM 


5 


capital stock in trade. The natural and inevitable conclusion 
is that the man who labored to increase these products was en- 
titled to the total increase. It was his in absolute fee sim- 
ple. He could use it up; he could give it away; he could ex- 
change it; he could destroy it; it belonged to him and to no 
other. When Esau sold his birthright for a mess of pottage he 
had a perfect right to do so. Critics may question the divine 
right as much as they please. Yet it will stand and be recogniz- 
ed as long as the world endures. It is guaranteed by the con- 
stitution of the United States. Among our “inalienable rights” 
are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” But these are 
not all by any manner of means. When God took the Hebrew 
slaves out of Egyptian bondage it was for the express purpose 
of restoring free labor to the product of its toil. When God led 
this nation down through the red sea of blood during the civil 
war it was not to place every slave in better financial circum- 
stances. But it was to defend the free toiler’s right to the pro- 
duct of his labor. Socialism says there is no such right. This 
product belongs to the Co-operative Commonwealth. Socialism 
is the natural, inherent condition of all primitive barbaric peo- 
ples, while civilization is the product of the highest develop- 
ment of the individual along the lines of his chosen occupation. 
Every aboriginal tribe of America was based on Socialism. The 
hunting grounds and fishing streams and lakes were held in 
common by the tribe occupying certain sections. All animals, 
birds and fishes were the common property of all. All game se- 
cured on their great hunting expeditions W’as divided equally 
among all the families of the tribe. 

There is another danger from Socialism which is too often 
overlooked. How does it affect the home life? I need only 
quote from a speech delivered by Miss Elleanor Marx, daughter 
of Karl Marx, both exponents of Socialism, and this view sums 
up the whole teaching of the socialistic system on this subject. 
Miss Marx said, as stated in the Chicago Tribune, Nov. 14, 1886: 

“Love is the only recognized marriage in Socialism. Con- 
sequently no bonds of any kind would be required. Divorce 
would be impossible, as there would be nothing to divorce, for 
when love ceased separation would naturally ensue.” 

Miss Marx was at that time traveling in this country with Dr. 
Aveling, the intimate friend of her father, Karl Marx, and the 
translator into English of his chief w'ork, “Das Kapital.” She 
passed as Mrs. Aveling, although the real wife of Dr. Aveling, 
an aging and invalid woman, was living in London. When at 
her death a few years later Dr. Aveling discarded Miss Marx and 
married another woman. The tragic story of the suicide of the 
sometime “free wife” w r as heralded in the leading newspapers 
of England and America. Further comment is needless. I pre- 
sume this style of “Free Love” would suit many Socialist agita- 
tors, but not you nor me. 

I fear there are many who resemble the centipede in the 
fable: 

“The centipede was happy till one day the toad in fun said, 
‘Pray which leg goes after which',’ This strained his mind to 
such a pitch he lay distracted in a ditch considering how to run.’ 

And yet there are many who lie in the ditch of speculation 
and doubt considering how to run, when if they would use their 


6 


ATTACK ON SOCIALISM 


reason to better purpose they might be cheerfully running in 
the ways of truth and not of Socialism and doubt. 

God has given us the great truths of liberty and equality. 
Let us not fear that in our land they shall be overthrown or 
destroyed. Though we may go through dark times, yet the day 
shall come when there shall be peace and good will on earth, 
when there shall be no more oppression, but when all over the 
world there shall be a common people, with a common Bible, 
a common God and a common peace and joy in a common 
brotherhood. I beseech you to consider carefully the coursee 
you are pursuing and cease to follow the bloody flag of Social- 
ism and infamy. The world can never find peace and rest in 
these but only as they follow in the footsteps of the lowly 
Nazarine. 

Yours very sincerely, 

FRANK WHEELER. 



The Defense 

By J. B. RUTHERFORD 

* 

San Dimas, Cal., August 14, 1905. 

Frank Wheeler, Esq.: 

Dear Sir and Brother — Your letter of the 7th inst. replying 
to mine of recent date is to hand. I must say I am very much 
pleased at your able attack against Socialism. I have written 
scores of letters to parties of my acquaintance and to leading 
men in our nation, many of whom acknowledged receipt of 
them, but only three made any defense of our present capitalist 
system. Several congratulated me on the strength of my ar- 
guments, and promised to give Socialism more thought and 
consideration, the latest being the editor of the California Chris- 
tian Advocate. One clergyman said I was the only correspondent 
on the Socialist question he had who gave evidence of good 
sense, and bade me go on with my letter writing. I mention this, 
not by the way of boasting, but for the reason very few of our 
Socialist leaders and very few opponents have viewed Socialism 
from a Christian standpoint. Your arguments are good, view- 
ing them from the capitalist side, but when examined from the 
Socialist side, they look altogether different. I love to meet a 
man who gives reasons for the stand he takes; it gives evidence 
of thought and brain power and gives me an opportunity to 
reason with him and to show up the Socialist side of the argu- 
ment. When a man of thought and brain power is convinced 
of his error he becomes a power on the Socialist side and that 
is why we have so many able, enthusiastic workers in the So- 
cialist ranks. I will take up your arguments as they come and 
try and answer them, and if you are not prejudiced and your 
ambition from a monetary point of view does not stand in the 
way, I have good hopes of you and I working together in har- 
mony for the cause of Socialism or a Co-operative Common- 
wealth. You say you consider the Appeal to Reason a danger- 
ous firebrand. That is the opinion I had of it when I first read 
it. I was so vexed with it 1 burned several copies to prevent 
them getting into other hands, and I determined to fight So- 
cialism to the bitter end. And in order to do so intelligently 
I wanted to know what I had to fight. I had 35 cents in post- 
age stamps in the house which I inclosed in a letter to J. A. 
Wayland, editor of the Appeal, for the worth of them of the best 
Socialist literature. It was the best spent money I ever in- 
vested. After reading the literature my combative propensities 
were somewhat abated. I sent for another dollar’s worth, 
which convinced me I was a Socialist and did not know it. I 
was not yet satisfied. I searched the city of Los Angeles in 
vain for some literature that would show up the adverse side 
to Socialism, and wrote the editor of the Los Angeles Times to 


8 THE DEFENSE 

expose its weak points, but failed to find any arguments in that 
paper against the principles for which Socialists contend. But 
would put up some Socialist strawman to whack over the back, 
but no arguments were advanced against the principles advo- 
cated by Socialists. You are the first and only man who has 
put up any kind of a reasonable fight. Socialism, you say, is 
nothing but anarchy in disguise. You do not define anarchy. 
Consequently, your assertion lacks proof. Anarchists do not 
believe in law. That every man should be a law unto himself 
and the survival of the fittest. Socialists believe in law and or- 
der and that every man should have the full product of his 
labor. Not such laws as we now have that permit the wealthy 
to oppress the poor by exploiting them of the greater part of 
their productions. Laws by which the few have grown im- 
mensely wealthy and have made one per cent of our population 
possessors of nearly as much of the nation’s wealth as the other 
ninety-nine per cent. Laws by which, according to the latest 
census, forty-nine per cent of the nation’s producers are looking 
for employment, while the other fifty-one per cent are bearing 
the nation’s burdens for merely a subsistence for themselves 
and their families and not more than twenty-five per cent of 
them have homes they can call their own. You quote Henry 
Ward Beecher as authority for saying that Socialism is ab- 
solutely the worst form of monarchy. While Mr. Beecher was 
an eminent clergyman, evidently he was not posted on Social- 
ism, otherwise he would not have made the statement. So- 
cialism and monarchies are not in accord, and what puzzles So- 
cialists is what is to be done with monarchs under co-opera- 
tion. Neither are the most active men in the Socialist party 
foreigners. We have many able Americans who are active in 
Socialist work. Such men as Debs, Wayland, Hanford, Wil- 
shire, Richardson, etc. Personally I acknowledge the accu- 
sation, and, although a Canadian-American, I did not know any- 
thing of Socialism, nor did I ever see a Socialist to my knowl- 
edge until I came to California. As to classes continuing to 
exist and that there will be top, bottom and middle, Socialists 
do not deny, nor is it their intention to try to prevent, but, on 
the contrary, will encourage emulation. What Socialists do 
hope to prevent is the class distinction, caused by accumula- 
tion of wealth by the schemer who has wealth at the expense 
of his weaker or more illiterate neighbor, or by educational ad- 
vantages which the poor cannot afford under our present sys- 
tem, or by legalized robbery, made legal by those who are in 
authority or by their predecessors in office. The workingman’s 
condition is not as good now as it was in Mr. Beecher’s day, 
living expenses having increased at a greater ratio than wages, 
fewer have homes and the opportunities to labor are on the 
decrease, while machinery is displacing labor. You say Social- 
ism submerges the individual and deals with the race collect- 
ively. Such is not the fact, but on the other hand, Socialists 
aim to give every producer the full product of his labor and to 
stop the wealthy owners of machinery, transportation and pub- 
lic utilities from forcing laborers to divide with them part of 
their productions in the form of profits, rents and interest. 
Neither does Socialism place a premium on the indolent, thrift- 
less, incompetent and vicious. Under Socialism, if a man will 
not work, neither shall he eat at the public expense. But 


THE DEFENSE 


9 


under capitalism, the indolent, wealthy and the hosts of other 
parasites are living at the expense of labor. Even the hoboes 
get a living and come out even better at the end of the year 
than many poor laborers, as he comes out free or debt and has 
had a subsistance, while the laborer may be in debt to the doc- 
tor, the grocer or his landlord for rent. 

The term Christian Socialist, you say, is absurd; that So- 
cialism is not in accord with Christ’s teaching. Let us examine 
this statement. Socialists propose to give every man or wo- 
man an opportunity to do a share of the world’s work. Is there 
anything in that contrary to Christ’s teaching? I think not. 
They propose to provide a home for every head of a family, for 
which his labor will be taxed to pay for it, during a long term 
of years without interest. Is that opposed to Christ’s teaching? 
I cannot see anything conflicting. They propose to educate 
every child to the full extent of his ambition or capacity. I 
see nothing in that contrary to Christ’s teaching. Do you? 
Socialists propose to provide free medical attendance in all 
cases of sickness, and maintenance for a man’s family while he 
is incapacitated for work. Does that conflict with Christ’s 
teaching? Not much. When a man or woman arrives at the 
age of sixty years Socialists propose to pay them a pension suffi- 
cient to keep them in comfort, if not in luxury, so that no one 
will be dependent on another in old age. Do you see anything 
in that contrary to Christ’s teaching? I don’t. Well, those 
are the aims and objects of Socialists. Under such conditions 
we could be true Christians instead of professors or hypocrites, 
as many of us are at present under our competitive system of 
every man for himself. We could obey Christ’s command to 
lay not up for ourselves treasure on earth. We could do 
unto others as we would have others do unto us. We 
could love our neighbors as ourselves. We could afford 
to sell what we have and give to the poor, if there were any 
poor, and if not (as you admit there would be no poor under 
Socialism), we could put it into a common fund, as the dis- 
ciples did, and as was practiced by the early Christians for cen- 
turies until Constantine, emperor of Rome, saw that, notwith- 
standing all the persecutions of the early Christians, Christian- 
ity was certain to become predominant throughout the world, 
he adopted it as the state religion (it is generally believed) on 
condition that Christians would drop communism and the 
Christian fathers, in order to have the persecution cease, agreed 
to the proposal. Church and state were united, Christianity 
then became respectable among the wealthy classes, and after 
which it was slowly submerged into almost complete darkness. 
Christians could no longer obey Christ’s teaching and compete 
with one another for a subsistence. They were obliged to lay 
up treasure on earth to provide themselves homes and for sick- 
ness and old age and for their families who were dependent 
on them and to give their children a start in life. They could 
not affrod to give their surplus to the poor, nor could they love 
their neighbor as themselves. Christ’s teaching became an 
ideal much to be admired, but impractical of fulfillment under 
competition, and it still remains the same at the present day. 
Christianity has not yet wholly emerged from the darkness 
whch submerged it and cannot do so until our competitive sys- 
tem is abolished and co-operation takes its place. Why was 


10 


THE DEFENSE 


Christianity so attractive to the poor in the early stages of its 
existence, and why is it not equally attractive today? Why 
did the masses flock to the Christian standard at that time, 
while in our present day, with all our boasted development and 
enlightenment, the Christian churches are making such little 
progress, and why is the Socialist movement making such rapid 
progress throughout the world? Why are Socialists being per- 
secuted by the wealthy class and exploiters of labor, while our 
present-day Christians are assisted and encouraged by those 
same persecutors? Has Christ lost his attractiveness? I 
think not. He is the same desirable redeemer he always has 
been. Is it not because our churches have given up Christ’s 
plan of co-operation and the Socialists have taken it up and 
joined hands with the poor and oppressed, as did the lowly 
Nazarine? If the Christian churches adopted the plan of com- 
munism or co-operation as Christ did, do you not think they 
would still be persecuted as were the early Christians during the 
first three centuries of the Christian church? When Christ 
entered on his worldly mission to establish God’s kingdom on 
earth he adopted a plan of economics by which it would be easy 
for the people to live up to his ideal of man’s duty to God. 
That while man did not live by bread alone, he realized that 
man could not live without bread and his plan of communism 
provided abundance for all. They all put their earnings into 
a common fund; each received as he had need and none lacked. 
Man’s physical needs being assured, there was no cause for 
worry for the things of life while in pursuit of eternal happi- 
ness in the world to come and the establishing of God's king- 
dom on earth. You agree with me; we are now living in the 
latter days, and that Christ warned his disciples that false pro- 
phets would arise who would almost deceive the very elect 
and you believe Christ’s warning has special reference to So- 
cialists. I am not aware of any Socialists claiming to be the 
Christ, or to be prophetic along religious lines. However, they 
do prophesy the downfall of capitalism, as everything seems 
to point that way. Wealth is getting into very few hands. 
Not more than one-half of the laboring class can find permanent 
employment and those who do are paid barely enough wages 
to give them and their families a bare subsistence. Soup 
kitchens are in operation in most of our large cities. Mur- 
ders, robberies and suicides are of daily occurrence. Strikes 
of the laboring classes against oppression are reported in the 
daily papers, poverty and want bordering on famine abound 
in every city. Certainly the indications point very strongly 
towards a crisis and capitalism seems tottering towards a fall 
and there is no prospective remedy except that offered by the 
Socialist party. It does not need the foresight of a seer or a 
witch to know how the straws are blowing, or what is likely 
to be the result in the near future. You remind me that I ad- 
mit there are unbelievers, Freethinkers, Atheists, Materialists, 
etc., in the ranks of the Socialists and want to know if I real- 
ize my loneliness. In reply, I would say I am not any more 
lonesome than when in the ranks of capitalism. I find even 
more Christians in proportion to numbers among Socialists. 
And what is it that makes men unbelievers in God and our 
savior Jesus Christ? Is it not the every-day life of our church 
members who profess Christianity and make a mockery of their 


THE DEFENSE 


11 


profession by disobeying his teaching and they cannot do other- 
wise and provide a comfortable living for themselves and fami- 
lies under our present competitive system when they have to 
compete with one another for a living. Shall we then continue 
the system and disobey Christ, or shall we change it and make 
it possible to obey him? As for myself, I am decided to use 
every effort to change the system. In our little church at San 
Dimas we have a dozen or more Socialists and others who are 
on the fence and likely to join us. You say I am far too good a 
man for such company as the men who Took to Eugene Debs 
as their savior. Thanks for the compliment. I take little no- 
tice of the private lives of our politicians. But I must say as 
far as I have learned Eugene Debs is a much maligned man, and 
I think his life and character will compare favorably with 
those who are in authority at Washington. Debs is a victim 
of tne corporation he served and when his trial was in prog- 
ress the evidence went so strongly against his accusers one of 
the jury suddenly feigned sickness, his trial was postponed, and 
remains postponed to the present day. Debs was remanded to 
jail to await the completion of the trial and tne corporation 
fearing exposure the trial remained unfinished and Debs was 
set at liberty. While in jail he saw the futility of labor even 
obtaining justice by striking; he studied Socialism and now he 
is leading the laboring hosts to victory under the Socialist ban-* 
ner, and he is doing it peaceably. The slugger, the persecutor 
and the midnight assassin are in the ranks of the capitalists. 
I would refer you to the late trouble in Colorado as a sample, 
where the foulest crimes were committed and peace and un- 
offensive women outraged under the protection or military law. 
Honest offcials who tried to do justice were forced to resign 
their offices to which they had been elected by a majority vote 
with a rope around their necks, which meant death if they 
refused. Military thugs, the outcasts of society, were orga- 
nized under Governor Peabody and led by General Bell and by 
the consent of our nation’s executive at Washington. Capi- 
talist papers do not give the public this sort of news. It is not 
in the interests of capitalists. Eugene Debs may have his 
faults, but they are not to be compared with those of many of 
our representatives who are now in authority at Washington 
and all over our nation. Look at the steals, frauds, grafts, 
etc., that are now going on in every city, county and state in the 
union. Our nation appears to be a seething mass of rottenness 
and corruption, and while many of our rulers participate in the 
frauds, they are returned to power through the influence of the 
political machine known as the push and are supported by the 
rank and file of the party. Debs is only an infant in crime com- 
pared with many of those who are now at the helm of state. 
The walking delegates, as a rule, are not Socialists, many of 
whom are supporters of the old political parties, who promise 
them concessions or political plums for keeping the members of 
their unions from joining the Socialist party. Such men as 
Gompers, Mitchell et al. who oppose the Socialists. Again, 
you say we ought to place before ourselves a higher ideal. A 
bird has the right to soar as high as its wings will carry it and 
a mole has a right to go where its nature carries it. Just so. 
I agree with you there. But when a bird of prey soars high 
and carries off the little lamb to devour at its leisure, or the 


12 


THE DEFENSE 


mole girdles the roots of our orchard trees, is it not our right 
to protect ourselves from their depredations? and that is just 
what the trusts, the birds of prey, are doing, and protect them- 
selves in their robbery by legislation, while the Socialists have 
matured a plan for the protection of the producers of all 
wealth. 

I admit that much of what men suffer has been the result 
of their own thoughtlessness, and while some may deserve the 
burdens of their lot, what about the sufferings of their wives 
and children who are the innocent victims of their folly? Is it 
not our duty to try and not only relieve their distress but abol- 
ish the system of which it is the inevitable result and make it 
impossible for those conditions to continue? I also agree with 
you that the calamities sent by heaven may sometimes be 
avoided, and the sensible way of avoiding them is by removing 
the cause, which is of our own making, and under which it is 
necessary for a kind and loving father to send the calamity as a 
punishment and under which the innocent sometimes suffer 
with the guilty. You advise me to be careful how I monkey 
with the buzz-saw. The advice is good. I have a mutilated 
finger as a result of lack of carelessness, but it taught me a 
lesson of watchfulness, and the buzz-saw was made to do effi- 
cient work, and while we may suffer persecutions by the powers 
of the millionaire capitalists, the Socialist buzz-saw will event- 
ually accomplish the work of its designers. 

Now we come to your scripture lessons. Christ taught us to 
say, “Give us this day our daily bread,” and surely you say that 
prayer is as applicable today as it was 1900 years ago. Let us 
examine this matter. We will take Mr. Rockefeller, for in- 
stance, with his billion dollar fortune. How is it necessary 
for him to ask for daily bread? Then next on the list we will 
take Mr. Pierpont Morgan worth nearly another billion dollars, 
and Mr. Baer, of divine right coal fame, and Mr. Huntington, 
the railway king, and Mr. Carnegie, of the steel trust, and 
Schwab and Vanderbilt and Jim Hill and Gould and the thous- 
ands of other multimillionaires. Is it not mockery for these 
men to ask for daily bread? Take every property owner in 
our nation who have more treasure on earth than they can use 
in a life-time and are greedy for more. What need is there 
for them to ask for daily bread? Now compare these men with 
those whom Christ taught that- prayer and with the plan of 
communism which Christ adopted. All put their earnings into 
a common fund, each received as he had need; none lacked. 
While Socialism is not Christianity, it is much nearer Christ’s 
ideal than our present insane competitive system which you 
uphold. Again, you say Christ said: “The poor ye have al- 
ways with you.” Do you think for a moment it was Christ’s 
will that we would always have the poor with us? Did he not 
adopt a plan of communism to abolish poverty, ‘and was it not 
abolished from among those who became his followers, each re- 
ceived as he had need, none lacked? What did Christ mean 
when he said the poor ye have always. Let us look at the cir- 
cumstances of the situation. His friends were about to do 
him honor. Judas, who carried the bag, made the remark on 
the apparent waste, not that he cared for the poor, but the op- 
portunity for graft the money would give him, and when Christ 
said “The poor ye have always with you,” do you not think he 


THE DEFENSE 


13 


meant that his disciples would have abundant opportunity after 
he had gone to assist the poor? In the meantime he desired to 
gratify his friends by permitting them this one opportunity to do 
him honor and show their love. Again when he said, “Blessed 
be ye poor for yours is the kingdom of God,” was he not con- 
soling them for their patience in submitting to oppression and 
promised them as a reward the kingdom of God? Do you im- 
agine that promise applies to the wicked poor of our present 
day who abound in all our large cities? I don’t. Next, you 
mention the parable of the talents, signifying the unequal dis- 
tribution of wealth. Do you suppose when Christ told that par- 
able he approved of the man’s action who distributed those tal- 
ents, while at the same time his followers were practicing the 
plan of communism? Is it not more reasonable to suppose he 
was trying to impress another truth on the minds of his hearers? 
We are not born equal in intellect, but we are born equal in 
other respects. Do you not think that Christ was trying to 
teach his hearers they should use those natural talents which 
God has given them in the cause of righteousness rather than 
in the acquisition of wealth, and that God would require just 
as strict an account from us for the use of our natural talents 
as the nobleman did from his stewards, and our failure or neg- 
lect would be punished in a similar manner to that of the man 
who buried his talent in a napkin? Yet you infer that Jesus 
taught that God had unequally distributed the wealth of the 
world. I have a much better opinion of God and of our Lord 
and Savior Jesus Christ than that, and while God, with the ap- 
plication of man’s labor produces all the world’s wealth, it is 
man who makes the unjust distribution and the wealthy class 
who are our rulers make the laws that permit them to rob the 
producers and to hold their illgotten gains. Yes, there are 
many profound lessons in all of Christ’s teachings, and we 
should take heed lest we take wrong meanings out of them 
in order to quiet our consciences and screen ourselves in our 
wrong doing. 

When God created this earth he made it for all mankind and 
not for a part. He intended that all should have an equal op- 
portunity to produce a living, but a part of the human race, 
the more crafty and cunning, have made the conditions unequal 
and thereby force the great majority of our race to become 
their slaves in order that they may live in indolence and afflu- 
ence. I do not believe that God intended such injustice. I 
have a more holy opinion of our creator. I consider him a just 
God, but I shall not dwell any longer on this phase of the sub- 
ject; it would take too long. 

In reference to the earth productions. Your observations 
are good. Man has a right to do what he wills with all he pro- 
duces; he can use it up or give it away or destroy it. It belongs 
to him and no other. But the part he takes from the products 
of others, and for which he does not render an equivalent^ that 
is the part Socialists contend he has no right to, and ’what 
Socialists want done is to confine him to his own productions, 
and prevent him from using his surplus to exploit his fellow 
man, and that is Socialism in a nutshell — “simple justice.” 

In regard to Esau’s birthright, that was one of the ancient 
laws and was in existence before the time of Moses. It was a 
man-made law when the human race was in a patriarchal stage. 


14 


THE DEFENSE 


When Christ came he abolished that system and adopted a new 
one, doing away with all class distinctions, a universal brother- 
hood. Yet we Christians, many of us, still cling to and uphold 
these distinctions and vote for the capitalist politicians, al- 
though they are relics of a bygone age. You say our rights to 
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are guaranteed us by 
the constitution of the United States. Is life guaranteed us 
when in order to live we are forced to obtain employment from 
those who own the tools or means of production. Oh, no, we 
may starve for all our rulers care or those who own the tools 
care, unless we labor for such wages as they choose to give us 
and will guarantee them a profit, while millions are anxious to 
earn a subsistence, but are denied an opportunity? Have we 
liberty when, in order to live, we must please some high-salaried 
boss whose job depends on whether he can show a profit out of 
the poor laborers for some soulless corporation or trust? Yes 
we have the right to pursue after happiness, but the great ma- 
jority never find it and are fleeced out of the greater part of 
their productions, while they keep on pursuing. You mention 
the Hebrew slaves whom God took out of Egyptian bondage. 
They were never in worse bondage than are many of our labor- 
ing class today. The slaves of the South were in an infinitely 
better condition than are millions of our wage slaves today, for 
the negroes were assured of food and clothing and shelter, 
while many of our wage slaves are dying for lack of all three. 
Yet our nation was made to wade through a sea of blood to free 
the negroes from bondage, and we approve of that action. But 
now, when our wage slaves, both black and white, are in worse 
bondage, our rulers refuse to lift a finger to help them, but on 
the contrary, use every means to fasten the shackles more 
securely, and even persecute them when making an effort to free 
themselves. Yes, the aboriginal tribes practiced a sort of 
communism. It was crude, yet it was superior to our present 
system in some respects, for as long as there was any food in 
store each received a share, but under our system our store- 
houses may be filled to overflowing with the products of the 
workers, while the workers themselves may be famishing with 
cold and hunger and without shelter to protect them from the 
inclemency of the weather. Are such conditions right? are 
they just? How can professing Christians uphold them and be 
followers of the lowly Nazarene? Are their eyes blinded by 
their financial prospects in life or are they like the rich young 
nobleman trusting in their accumulations and go away sorrow- 
ing lest their prospects for adding thereto be taken from them. 
If any human being deserves to starve, surely it is the drones 
and parasites. If any person has a right to a comfortable living 
surely it is the producers of all wealth. Yet the reverse is the 
condition of things in all the civilized nations of the earth. 
Such conditions may be called civilization, but most certainly 
they are not righteousness, when millions of our people who are 
able and anxious to work are deprived of an opportunity and 
are slowly starving to death in consequence. 

Next, you refer to the effects of Socialism on the home life. 
Socialism, you fear, will destroy the home. Let us examine this 
question. Socialists propose to provide a home for every head 
of a family. When a young man desires to marry and settle 
down in life a home will be supplied him, for which his labor 


THE DEFENSE 


15 


will be taxed to keep it in repair and pay for it. He will need 
an opportunity to earn a living. Socialism will provide that 
opportunity and also for his wife if she desires to help him. Is 
there any danger under such conditions of destroying the home? 
I cannot see any. How does capitalism preserve the home? 
Nearly two-thirds of our citizens have no homes and most of 
them never will while our competitive system endures. But 
many of our clergymen, who are the paid servants of the weal- 
thy class, promise them homes in the next world if they are 
patient and will be good till they die. If a young man wants 
to marry and settle down in life he must earn enough to sup- 
port himself, and save and economize for a life-time in order 
to get a home, and when he has it nearly paid for he may be- 
come sick or lose his situation. The mortgage held by some 
capitalist shark is foreclosed and he loses his savings of a life- 
time and he becomes a homeless outcast in old age. Others 
may be too shrewd to take such a risk or may be too proud 
to bring a wife into a rented shack and raise a family in poverty 
and misery. What becomes of them? Perhaps they drift into 
some city and what is the result? Sad! Sad Is the tale that 
can be told of millions of our young men and their wasted lives 
who die old bachelors. And what of our young women? Some 
of them wait for years on the prospective prosperity of their 
ideal young man and finally lose hope and marry some one 
whom they do not love just for a home in their old age. Others 
drift into our cities and perhaps find employment at wages 
insufficient to clothe and maintain them and to supplement 
their income in order to exist are forced into dens of infamy 
and prostitution and eventually die unmarried. That is how 
capitalism preserves the home. You quote Miss Elenor Marx 
as an example of Socialists. While your quotation may be 
true, I never knew of a Socialist writer who advocated such an 
ideal, nor have I ever met a Socialist who favored it. I would 
point you to the Oneida Community of Free Love in the far East 
and the Mormon colony in Utah, who are polygamists, both of 
whom were supporters of the capitalist parties. Parties are not 
responsible for the views of some of their adherents. Under 
Socialism the majority of the people will rule and not their 
representatives in congress. You and I and also our wives 
will have votes on all important political questions. The elec- 
tors will make the laws and not their representatives, as they 
now do under our present system, and when we have such con- 
ditions in our nation I do not think its morals will suffer and 
there will not be much danger of free love or the destruction of 
the home. Regarding the centipede in the fable to which you 
refer, I agree with you. There are millions of our people at 
present who are considering which way to run. They see the 
wickedness, corruption, fraud, graft, crime, want and misery 
that are the direct results of our present competitive system and 
they do not know the cause. Their eyes are being opened by 
the Socialists, and as soon as that is done the stampede from 
capitalism to Socialism will be so great it will astonish the 
world. They will not (like the centipede) stop long to consider 
how to run, but will follow after truth and justice, for which 
Socialists contend, and until a co-operative commonwealth is 
established under which every man’s interests will be that of 
his neighbor, instead of antagonistic, as at present, peace on 


16 


THE DEFENSE 


earth and good will to men can never come. Competition can 
never bring good will. The trusts have realized that and abol- 
ished it and are now drawing larger dividends with less expense 
in peace and harmony. 

You say God has given us the great truths of liberty and 
equality. While it is God’s will that we should enjoy these 
blessings, man’s inhumanity has deprived us of both; we have 
neither liberty nor equality, and never will under existing con- 
ditions. 

Before closing, I would refer you to the lack of system under 
which our commercial business is managed. Every manufac- 
turer of any importance, every wholesale dealer in each line of 
business employs a staff of solicitors or drummers, going over 
the same railways, visiting the same towns and cities, but to 
different customers. Every retail grocer employs his special 
solicitors and delivery wagons canvassing and delivering to all 
parts of every town and city, traveling the same streets, but 
visiting different customers. Supposing the mail matter of any 
of our great cities that arrives daily were dumped in one room 
and the delivery men told to fill their sacks and go out and de- 
liver, each one might have to travel to all parts of the city 
instead of on one or two streets > as at present. The number 
of carriers would have to be increased tenfold to do the work. 
Yet such is the insane system on which our commercial business 
is managed today, and all this useless expense has to be paid 
by the producers. Profits have to be put on the goods to cover 
this useless expense. Under co-operation there would be no 
duplication of labor. Everything would be managed with the 
least possible waste, and the men who are now employed at this 
work would be put to productive employment, which would 
shorten the hours of labor for each individual worker. I tell 
you, brother, you should study this question; it will bear exam- 
ination, and the more you know of it, if you are not prejudiced 
or your financial prospects do not stand in the way, the more 
you will admire it. What do we need wealth ror, anyway? Is 
it not to provide homes for ourselves and to educate our chil- 
dren and to maintain us in ill health and in old age and to give 
our children a start in life? We cannot take it with us to the 
next world. Well, all these desirable objects of our ambition 
will be provided for undre co-operation. Under such conditions 
our individual interests would not conflict. There is not a 
single one of Christ’s teachings we could not obey. We could 
live true Christians instead of mere professors of Christianity; 
we could serve God alone instead of trying to serve God and 
Mammon, which Christ said was impossible. I will now bring 
my letter to a close, having sown some more good Socialist seed 
which I hope will fall on fertile soil and bring forth fruit a 
thousandfold, and while we cannot endorse the religious or anti- 
religious views of many of our Socialist leaders, we should not 
hinder them in the good work they are doing. You remember 
when the disciples told Christ they had forbade those who were 
casting out devils in Christ’s name, because they were not his 
followers. The master said forbid them not, that whoever was 
not against him was for him. So it is with the Socialists. They 
are helping forward the cause of God and the brotherhood of 
man and it is not for us Christians to throw obstacles in their 
way, but rather become leaders in the work. And if our clergy- 


THE DEFENSE 


17 


men throughout the world will refuse to be gagged by the fear 
of capitalists withholding their contributions to their salaries 
and will lead in the work, it will not be long unitl we will have 
a Co-operative Commonwealth and the world will be won for 
Christ. Christianity will be equally as attractive as it was in 
the days of the Christian martyrs. Will not you. my brother, 
join the procession and become a leader in the Socialist ranks? 
Not like Moses who led the children of Israel tnrough the wil- 
derness. But, like Joshua and Caleb, who led them out of the 
desert into the promised land. Not like our clergymen who are 
leading the world’s multitudes through this wilderness of sin 
and misery, want and oppression, but true leaders who will lead 
them out into the Beulah land of perfect Christianity and 
thereby establish God’s kingdom on earth, as Christ taught us 
to pray — 

“Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in 
heaven.” 

I remain yours for God’s kingdom on earth, 

J. B. RUTHERFORD. 



WHAT SOCIALISTS WILL DO 


Everyone is joining the Socialist party 

And those who belong are good, true and hearty. 

Pa he talks Socialism and I’ll be bound 

He will make you a Socialist if you’ll come 'round. 

Won't you be one of our Socialist band? 

We’re spreading the gospel all over the land. 

These people are preaching from sea unto sea 
The gospel good tidings for you and for me. 

Socialists will provide for each family a home 
And will put to good work the rich, lazy drone. 

The little wee Tots who now work with a tool 
Will have a nice home, and each morn go to school. 

A Free doctor will come to all who are sick; 

They will not be sent through the door with a kick. 
There will be no liquor to make men unkind, 

And the women will think it a plan that is fine. 

To all who are aged or starving for food 
A pension is promised to all who are good. 

The saloon keepers now who get rich off the poor 
Will be turned out of business or shov’d out the door. 

When our band is in power not one will dare shirk, 

For no one will eat unless he will work. 

Our great standing army who are taught warlike tricks 
Will be put to good work like making of Bricks. 

A profit on goods will be of the past; 

The result will be good, I'm sure it will last. 

Those who have houses to rent to the poor 
Shall work for a living or starve on the moor. 

Those who take interest from labor’s hard toil 
Will have to earn money their kettle to boil. 

These people are preaching from sea unto sea 
This gospel good tidings to win you and me. 


Composed by Ruth Rutherford, San Dimas, Cal., aged 11 years. 




















































































































































LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 








a 


The White Press 



Los Angeles, Cal. 


U 




